Peter Kanowski, Head of School, School of Resources, Environment and Society, Australia National University
Key issues raised by the questions posed in the title include how we understand and define a "Faculty of Forestry", the purpose of such faculties, and the institutional arrangements in which they function. I suggest that a Faculty of Forestry is defined fundamentally by its academic staff and how they define their goals, which I believe can be articulated principally in terms of Boyer's "four scholarships: discovery, integration, application and teaching". Faculties of Forestry exist under a variety of institutional arrangements, none of which are necessarily superior. These arguments suggest that we need Faculties of Forestry which succeed in terms of their mandate, as defined by Boyer's scholarships, and in terms of their particular institutional contexts. This precis is intended to be read in conjunction with my earlier paper (Kanowski 2001), "Forestry Education in a Changing Landscape" (Appendix 4), on which it draws.
As has been stated explicitly or implicitly by others (e.g. SAF 2000), a "Faculty3 of Forestry" is best defined in terms of a group of academic staff with interests and expertise in forestry - which I define in the broad sense outlined by Kanowski (2001). Such a definition recognises the central role of academic staff in both strategic and more operational decisions, though the role of other members of the academic community (e.g. research fellows and students, undergraduate students, support staff) also deserves recognition. Defining a "Faculty of Forestry" in these terms identifies a suite of subsidiary issues: the purpose to which the academic staff aspire and to which they are working; how many academic staff there are, and the expertise and interests they represent; and the institutional arrangements in which they work. Each of these issues is reviewed briefly below.
I suggest that Ernest Boyer's (1990, in Ramsden 1998) characterisation of academic work, in terms of the four "scholarships" outlined below, appropriately describes the purpose of a Faculty of Forestry as well of academic institutions more generally. Boyer argued that both institutions and individuals adopted different mixes of:
Individual institutions, as well as particular faculties, choose to define themselves in terms of a particular balance of these scholarships - e.g., "research-intensive". I do not see the choice of balance amongst the four scholarships as a critical issue in itself, recognising - as Boyer and Ramsden do - that each constitutes a legitimate and challenging form of academic work. However, the balance an institution or Faculty seeks amongst the four scholarships does raise important questions about the extent to which they are, or are not, interdependent. It also raises the question of strategic decisions about funding. I do not address the former issue further; it has been addressed by, amongst others, Boyer and Ramsden (ibid.). I consider funding issues briefly below. I suggest that, in general terms, the purpose of Faculties of Forestry should be to excel in whichever mix of the four scholarships in which they (typically guided by their parent institutions) seek to operate. Such success is likely to be related, to some extent, to the institutional context in which they function, as discussed below.
The Society of American Foresters' recent Task Force on Forestry Education Accreditation (SAF 2000) suggested a minimum of eight full-time equivalent academic staff were necessary to constitute a Faculty of Forestry deserving of professional accreditation. That Task Force and others (e.g. Anon 2000, Binkley 1995, Sample et al 1999; summarised in Kanowski 2001) have suggested the expertise which should be represented amongst the staff and/or imparted to students should include:
This precis does not seek to explore these issues further, but rather to draw attention to the considerable body of work which has addressed them. My own experience suggests that the SAF suggestion for minimum staff numbers is of the right order of magnitude, in terms of criteria such as coverage of subject areas and critical mass for a functional academic entity.
Three forms of institutional arrangements have been common for Faculties of Forestry:
These forms of institutional arrangements can be compared in terms of criteria which might be relevant - e.g. Boyer's scholarships, for the reasons advanced above (Table 1), or key strategic challenges (Table 2; examples only). The scoring in Tables 1 and 2 is meant only to be illustrative, and is based on opinion and assumption rather than on research. My point is only that it is likely the different institutional arrangements will have different strengths and limitations, and that those concerned with any particular Faculty and its contexts will need to conduct their own analysis.
Table 1. Indicative comparison of institutional arrangements against Boyer's scholarships
Table 2. Indicative comparison of institutional arrangements against some strategic challenges
Regardless of the particular form of institutional arrangement, a successful Faculty of Forestry is likely to be characterised by being working environment which is functional for both staff and students, viz. one which, in Ramsden's (1998) terms, enables academic activity. Such environments are characterised by (adapted from Ramdsen 1998):
I believe this question is best answered in terms of a Faculty of Forestry's performance against the criteria of Boyer's four scholarships (Table 1), and others such as those identified in Table 2. We need Faculties of Forestry, whatever their institutional arrangements, that both enable and are judged as successful against the performance criteria of discovery, integration, application and teaching. Faculties also need to be sufficiently robust institutionally - such robustness is likely to be conferred by success in the "core business areas" of Boyer's scholarships, and by good performance against criteria such as those identified in Table 2. Such an analysis suggests that the particular form which Faculties of Forestry should take will be determined by their particular contexts and circumstances.
References
Anonymous. (2000). 16-19 April 2000 - workshop with a difference: changing learning and education in forestry. Lâm Nghiêp Xã Hôi (Social Forestry) No. 2., October 2000. 28-33. http://www.socialforestry.org.vn
Binkley, C. (1995). From the Dean's desk. Branchlines 6(3): 1. http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/brchline/brchline.html
Kanowski, P. (2001). Forestry education in a changing landscape. International Forestry Review 3: 175-183.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. Routledge, London. 288p.
Sample, V.A., Ringold, P.C., Block, N.E. and Giltmer, J.W. (2000). Forestry education: adapting to the changing demands on professionals. J. Forestry 97 (9): 4-11.
Society of American Foresters. (2000). SAF Task Force on forestry education accreditation. Report to SAF Council, May 2000. 29p. http://www.safnet.org
3 The term "faculty" is used generically; depending on the institution, it might be referring to a "department", "program", "school", or some other unit.
